> Surely the metric should be "Do they know more than me?"

That's not a good metric. A better metric would be, "are they trustworthy and correct?"

> Or are you concerned that you'll move towards the apex of the Dunning Kruger chart?

Disqus is over there.

Why is that a better metric? There are levels of correctness. Do you sincerely believe that each article you read will push you backwards in knowledge? Even an untrustworthy source can contain valuable information; just ask an historian.

The Dunning Kruger joke was only partially a joke - I was trying to explain that there are levels of expertise. My view is that anything that increases my knowledge is good; I was trying to elicit a response as to why someone might think otherwise.

> are they trustworthy and correct?

So well-meaning idiots trump experts that might be trying to trick you?

If the experts are both incorrect and untrustworthy, of course.